gengwall

It is best that we not go off on bunny trails. There are several core assertions by Mark and responses by Cheryl that need to be concluded. One in particular interests me (mainly because I too believed it for a long time): that is that Adam is the “leader” of Eve (and the first family). Only one point from Genesis 3 has been put forth to support such an idea: Adam was approached first which designates him the leader.

We do know that Adam was approached first. There is no argument on that point. The question is why (assuming God had a reason and did not simply address the two randomly)? Although “Adam is leader” is certainly possible, Cheryl’s assertion that Adam committed the more egregious act is equally as possible and, I believe, more plausible given the supporting text. What do we have left that can help us determine the proper answer? Cheryl adds the following to her argument:

Adam was not called to answer for Eve (something any leader must do)
Eve was addressed separately and equally by God, both during the “trial” and during “judgement”.
The consequences from Adam’s act were far greater than from Eve’s (bringing death to the world, bringing a curse onto the ground, bringing eviction from the garden, whether for him alone or for them both)
Every biblical writer who has commented on Genesis 3 comes to the above conclusions. Likewise, no biblical writer says one word about Adam being the pre-fall leader of Eve, or of him being accountable for her actions.

My reading of the text, whether in Hebrew or English, accords these arguments the status of fact. Although Mark has rumbled a little against them, I don’t see how anyone can deny that that is exactly what happened.

Conversely, the only argument from the subsequent text that seems to support Adam’s leadership is “he shall rule over you”. Mark takes that as a remedy. I see it as a prophetic consequence. In either case, it is post-fall, so it can’t possibly be used to establish Adamic leadership pre-fall.

So, the only position that garners any evidence from the entire passage is Cheryl’s. Scripture remains mute on any leadership role for Adam pre-fall but has plenty to say about Adam’s crimes. I would maintain that, at the very least, the preponderance of evidence indicates that God sought out the more craven criminal first.

Frankly, if I look at this from a dramatic point of view, I imagine Eve being still a little shell shocked by the whole thing, while Adam knew what he had done all along. It is only fitting that God would deal with the intentional perpetrator before the deceived one.

I would hope that would settle the question. Although some people continue to hold out hope that Adam was Eve’s superior in the garden, it is still a baseless hope. At any rate, God did not deal with Adam in the same way He has dealt with every other accountable “leader” throughout history. That fact in and of itself should eliminate an Adamic leadership paradigm from our minds. If Adam wasn’t called to be accountable for Eve, then Adam simply wasn’t accountable for Eve.

And I hope that the “Eve was deceived; Adam intentionally sinned” debate would be soon resolved. I simply can’t see any other possibility. Frankly, any good complimentarian can’t come to any other conclusion, since, in their interpretation, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman [Eve] was deceived and fell into temptation [in the garden]”. Now, I don’t subscribe to Eve being “the woman”, but a true complimentarian must. Anyway, interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:14b not withstanding, there is a huge amount of evidence just with Paul that Adam’s sin had a different dynamic than Eve’s.

p.s. Thanks Kay – it is actually our 26th this year but we didn’t do anything for our 25th when we, along with the rest of the world, were tightening our belts, so this was out belated celebration.